« Just Making It Up | Main | Bizarro World »

10/01/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Roch

Um, yeah, so what was the lie, exactly?

Spag

Lies.

jaycee

Obama could not afford to acknowledge the first terrorist attack in 10 years that killed American civilians and the first killing of an American ambassador in decades. It would be devastating to his Muslim-friendly agenda, and would show the public that he's a foreign policy dunce.
The solution? Ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. Lie about it. Have all your underlings lie about it. Get the liberal mainstream media to lie about it for you. Repeat these lies until the sheeple believe that the lie is the truth and the truth is a lie.

Roch

Your link is broken, Sam.

Spag

More.

Roch

Help us out, Sam. Your one working link contains no quotations of Obama, so whatever lie you think is to be found there is not obvious. Spell it out for us, what did Obama say that was a lie? Just paste it here for clarity, so we won't have to assume that your links are a means of avoiding specificity.

bubba

"Spell it out for us....."

Spell it out for you?

You're a troll, a serial internet harasser, and a prevaricator of the first magnitude.

bubba

How many lies shall we discuss?

"The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration's concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan 'sovereignty' and the need for 'permission.' After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration's reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it's time to blame the intel munchkins and move on."

That's four right there. There are more.

bubba

Here's number five:

"There is an increasing probability Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith were killed by the very “Rebels” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supplied with money and arms. Indeed, as more details emerge the actual weapons used to kill these Americans might have been provided by the very NATO support operation Secretary Clinton coordinated.

Further, in attempting to obfuscate the willful neglect in President Obama’s Weekly Address last week, he claimed the two Navy Seals, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of Ambassador’s Stevens security detail. THIS IS A LIE."

The Washington Guardian:

"The administration has not fully described the two former Navy SEALs' activities, characterizing their work only vaguely as being security related. 'Our embassies could not carry on our critical work around the world without the service and sacrifice of brave people like Tyrone and Glen,' Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after the attacks.

As recently as Sunday, UN Ambassador Susan Rice gave a similar description. 'Two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them,' Rice told ABC's This Week program.

In fact, officials said, the two men were personal service contractors whose official function was described as 'embassy security,' but whose work did not involve personal protection of the ambassador or perimeter security of the compound."
White House.

jaycee

The president is responsible for any official statement from his administration, whether by the WH Press guy, the SecState, or Ambassador Rice. The buck stops in his Oval Office. If they lied, then the lie is on the president. If he doesn't condone the lies, he has the power to remove the liars from his administration. He has not done so; ergo, he owns and condones the lies.

bubba

More:

"White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on an assertion by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that requests from diplomats in Libya for added security prior to the September 11, 2012 attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, were denied.

'I’m not going to get into a situation under review by the State Department and the FBI,' Carney said. …"

The FBI won't be there for another two weeks, and maybe never at this point.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Obamanation wants to spike this story until after the election.

The cover up continues....

formerly gt

Bubba,

i think i see your confusion. see if this helps.

Obama didn't lie. He repeated bad intelligence.

Bush did lie. He repeated bad intelligence.

see the difference?

formerly gt

i mean if you get technical about it, obama and the admin knew what they were saying wasn't true. but you get the point.

CP(Worst person on the internet)

Sorry guys but Roch had some little book (out of print now I believe) written by a disgruntled ex-weapons inspector cowritten by an obscure antimilitary activist that he said proved beyond any doubt that Bush himself "lied" about WMD. So I think it's very unfair for you guys make any accusations of Obama lying without similar ironclad proof. I tried to contact Roch's source but seems to have faded from the scene since being jailed for exposing himself to little girls.

bubba

"....but you get the point"

The point being that trolls like Roch make the rules up as they go along, and reserve the privilege to change the rules without notice, as self-interest dictates, so that they're NEVER wrong, particularly when they are wrong.

In fairness to him, though, ALL academic and intellectual fraudsters are like that.

Spag

I'll bet Roch spent the last two days coming up with that whole Obama-didn't-actually-say-it-himself retort.

It's comically pathetic and steeped in denial and unreality. It's so stupid that even Joe Biden would call it stupid.

Of course, if we were to concede that Roch had a valid objection, then Roch would also have to concede that this would lead to the conclusion that Obama is a terrible leader who is terribly incompetent in allowing so many people to lie on behalf of his Administration and his policy without saying a word to correct them.

Talk about a sycophant grasping for straws. Mr. Objective Facts actually has the honor of being the least credible person in the local blogosphere for ridiculous crap like this.

Roch

Unable to come up with a single example to back up your lame accusation, you resort to a personal attack. That works for me. Says plenty and exposes your projection too.

CP ( worst person on the internet)

Again, Roch has very stringent standards for what constitutes a lie. He has demonstrated his consistency again and again. He is a man of integrity who would never sling such an accusation as casually as you have here, especially in a public forum.

formerly gt

IMHO, this is classic Roch. In this case he gets everyone talking about what a lie is and who lied instead of addressing the administration's deception.

The point of the post is clear. The Obama administration deliberately misled the public about the terrorist attacks. They were quick to point a finger at the film and even had the gall to attack romney for "jumping the gun". next they sent out the UN ambassador to reinforce the lie. They ran ads in Pakistan about the film that supposedly enraged the muslims. they even made sure that the identity of the movie's producer was known and that he was hauled away to jail.

there are two possible reasons for their actions.

one is that they're providing cover to the extremists. although they've shown they're willing to bend over backwards where muslim sensitivities are concerned, this doesn't seem to be the cause.

another reason is that the commander-in-chief can't afford the hit so close to the election. if the public stops to consider that mr. "i killed bin laden"'s administration was totally unprepared for violence on the anniversary of 9.11, they may start to have doubts about his worthiness for the office.

anyway, my bet is that Roch will never address the substance of the post - just the semantics. and he won't condemn obama for the administration's irresponsibility and dishonesty. he'd much rather carry on his version of the "it all depends upon what the definition of the word is is" argument.

CP ( worst person on the internet)

Yeah, he sort of picks his battles these days, and not very many at that, what with all the false equivalences and such.

The comments to this entry are closed.